When the possible death of humanities is a progressive development

MOOCs (massive open online courses)
and more freely available lectures and university content are transforming
the education landscape, and alliances between academia and corporations are ever-increasing. But this revolution
in education might pose a lethal threat for hardly commodifiable
disciplines such as those of the humanities.

Hundreds of thousands accessing knowledge for its own sake is
even more cause for rejoicing than if they were receiving diplomas, a commodity
in exchange for their learning. In a way, TEDx, Coursera and others like them
are taking part in the democratisation of education by removing it from the
shackles of consumerism and the market, a place where truly emancipatory
education has no future. However, such developments must be advanced with caution,
as their consequences on the production of knowledge could be detrimental, in
particular within the fields of humanities and social sciences.

Recently,
in the Guardian, Carole Cadwalladr argued that
free online access to tertiary courses and lectures would revolutionise
education. Cadwalladr imagined a United Kingdom where ‘the
"second-tier" universities … could struggle in the brave new free
education market world’. What Cadwalladr seemed to ignore is that these
universities are already struggling, not because of the ‘free education market’,
but because of the hegemony of free market strategies in education. This is
particularly striking in the humanities, an area of study to which Cadwalladr
only dedicated one paragraph, but one that has been the greatest loser in this
recent transformation of the education landscape.

A
world where online learning is generalised and ends up replacing other
education delivery modes could cause the loss of much of universities’ original
purposes. Most of the examples cited by Cadwalladr are from what is often
termed the ‘hard sciences’. With disciplines like mathematics or physics, it is
true that an online component could quite easily replace content delivery and
assessment undertaken on campus. Questionnaires with precise questions and
answers can easily be marked automatically online and it would therefore be
possible for tens of thousands to ‘sit’ such exams without necessitating
hundreds of invigilators and markers.

However,
even in these disciplines, a problem would arise in what seems to be central to
learning in higher education: the development of critical abilities and the
possibility for students to express their own original analytical skills.
Assessment marked automatically, where only one answer is correct, does not
leave space for human imagination and, therefore, progress. This is obviously
even more striking in the humanities where critical skills are (or should be)
central to assessment, and a guiding principle to any good essay writing and,
beyond all, fruitful studies.

The
development of online courses in lieu of university-based subjects also poses a
more practical problem for the humanities. More than other university areas, the
humanities depend on public funds for teaching students. If students can access
online modules for free from Ivy League universities, they may not want to
spend tens of thousands on a degree at a traditional university. Meanwhile,
many hard sciences can find industry partners for research funding, whilst the
humanities largely depend on government grants.

While
global Ivy League universities with industry partners can survive the current
decline in government funding, others will most likely be doomed if the
positive advancement of free universal education is not balanced by increased
public investment in universities. In a system where ‘impact’ is increasingly
driving research, this would be the death knell for many departments who would
struggle to make a case for the short-term practical relevance of their
research in a free-market economy. This is probably where we hit the crux of
the matter, and the main danger of advocating the surrender of education to the
online realm without prior guarantee that universities will be able to remain
(or return to being?) a space for fundamental thinking about all of humankind’s
knowledge, whether this is profitable or not.

As
co-founders of the Melbourne Free University, we firmly believe that education
should be and indeed is within everybody’s reach. Beyond the emancipatory power
of free education, financial pressures will obviously make students think twice
about undertaking expensive courses, if they can do the ‘same’ online; just as many tend to think twice before undertaking studies in humanities in the first place when job
prospects appear all too limited. However, while a strong supporter of free online education,
we are extremely wary of the consequences this potentially emancipatory project
could have on knowledge as a whole, if it is harnessed by market forces and
enters into competition with other forms of academic knowledge.

If
more corporations decide to support the extension of free online projects to
the point where their degrees become equivalent to that of traditional
universities, one consequence could be the further withdrawal of state funding
from education and the complete abandonment of education to laissez-faire
politics. This would allow governments to circumvent their responsibility to
fund tertiary education and research altogether. Once research is required to
be profitable to the private sector, as outlined in Ernst and Young’s manifesto ‘University of the Future’, it
is hard to imagine a prosperous future for the humanities and social sciences,
and beyond that, for critical research whose results are not immediately
applicable to the economy.

In
fact, one could imagine a return to a pre-revolutionary world where such a form
of knowledge and study would only be practised by a very small elite, rich
enough to delve into ‘unprofitable’ questions in their spare time. More than a
threat to the humanities, this would be a threat to democracy, as discussions
central to our future in terms of philosophy, ethics and the human condition in
general would be left to a small clique ‘of leaders and entrepreneurs of the
future’ whose interests are bound to be narrower than those of humanity as a
whole.

About the authors

Aurelien Mondon is a senior lecturer in French and comparative politics at the University of Bath, working on populism, the extreme right, abstention and the crisis of democracy. His research can be found here. He tweets @aurelmondon

Gerhard Hoffstaedter is a lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Queensland. He is co-founder of the Melbourne Free University.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Who are 'we' in a moving world?

Our partnership with The Open University brings together academics and artists to ask who – in a time when the lines marking out citizens, borders and nations are being drawn more starkly – 'we' are, and who gets to decide? Read more...

World Forum for Democracy 2017

This year, the theme is ‘populism’. Is the problem fake news or fake democracy? What media, what political parties, what politicians do we need to re-connect with citizens and make informed choices in 21st century democracy?

Civil Society Futures is a national conversation about how English civil society can flourish in a fast changing world.Come and add your voice»

Full coverage of the non-hierarchical conference held in Barcelona on 18-22 June 2017.